AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

http://www.osta.com/creation/-This set of presentations is suitable for use in a Sunday School class setting, for teaching students in Bible Schools, and for others interested in learning more about the Creation/Evolution controversy from a biblical perspective. The PowerPoint slides will help the believer defend the Bible's teaching on Creation. It will challenge the skeptic to take an honest look at what the Bible AND science have to say about creation. The following questions/issues are addressed in these presentations:-These are actually pretty good. I think DHW would definitely gain something from it, if only new things to be skeptical about in the face of ever increasing evidence :P-**and yes, I know the site is biased... aren't they all?**

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4707 views

TONY: http://www.osta.com/creation/-This set of presentations is suitable for use in a Sunday School class setting, for teaching students in Bible Schools, and for others interested in learning more about the Creation/Evolution controversy from a biblical perspective. The PowerPoint slides will help the believer defend the Bible's teaching on Creation. It will challenge the skeptic to take an honest look at what the Bible AND science have to say about creation. The following questions/issues are addressed in these presentations:
 
These are actually pretty good. I think DHW would definitely gain something from it, if only new things to be skeptical about in the face of ever increasing evidence :P
 
**and yes, I know the site is biased... aren't they all?**-Tony, I've tried it, but all I can do is save the files - I can't open them. I think I need something called a PowerPoint Viewer, but nine times out of ten when I try to install a new programme, something goes wrong! Is there any way you can put one of the arguments directly into a post?

4626 views


> Tony, I've tried it, but all I can do is save the files - I can't open them. I think I need something called a PowerPoint Viewer, but nine times out of ten when I try to install a new programme, something goes wrong! Is there any way you can put one of the arguments directly into a post?-Yes you need a Microsoft powerpoint viewer. I had to open it to save into the powerpoint, and then all I got was a series of slides from which the speaker would expand. It did offer some outline of his thoughts. From what I could see, he is a strict creationist who is trying to justify the Bible through creation science. It is a backwards approach to reality. I like my approach much better. Real science studies reality, and there is plenty there to jusstify the conclusion that there is a Grand Designer. But then I am not Tony, and I don't view the Bible as he does.

4763 views

Some of the basic points that I picked up(For the benefit of DHW):-

Out of 200+ methods of dating, 90% do not agree with extreme old ages.(I am still trying to confirm or deny that)

Fossils are used to date rock strata, which are in turn used to date fossils. Circular logic.(Confirmed)

Evolution violates 2nd law of Thermodynamics(confirmed by secular evolutionary scientist.)

Life requires information, information requires Code, meaning, action, purpose.(For David)

Lack of transitional fossil evidence to support Evolution.

Mutations in the genome can only alter or remove information, not add new information. 

Chance of selection of good mutation essentially zero

Statistically impossible. Probability of a single protein 1:10^240, of a single cell 1:10^40000(1:10^50 considered impossible[Law of Probability]).

10^80, estimated number of atoms in the galaxy. 

Evolution and Creation are not Theories, they are models, because neither can be tested, neither are falsifiable, and neither can be observed directly.

The model that incorporates the most data and has the smallest number of unresolved issues is the most likely to be true.[/b]

Evolution requires life to come from non-life, which has never been observed.

Evolution requires spontaneous generation of new fully functional organs, bones, tissues, etc, which has never been observed.

Adaptive mutations exist but are not sufficient to prove evolution because they do not change the species or add new functionality. 

Law of Biogenesis has never been falsified.

Everything in the universe is bound by laws, which demand a law giver.

Goldilocks planet at every level. Even our position within the Milkyway is a Goldilocks zone.

More than 100 precise universal constants, most of which is changed even a fraction of a percent would destroy life, the universe, and everything.

If the mass of a proton were increased by just 0.2 %, it would decay into a neutron, a positron and a neutrino. This decay does not occur - if it did, hydrogen could not exist. Hydrogen is the dominant element of the universe. Without it, the universe could not exist

...the list goes on and one.. lots of good details, quotes, and references for the curious mind.

-
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution.Â  At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No." 
Reported by Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary theory under fire," Science, vol. 210 (4472), 21 November 1980, p. 883] -"As we survey the history of life since the inception of multicellular complexity in Ediacaran times, one feature stands out as most puzzlingâthe lack of clear order and progress through time among marine invertebrate faunas."
[Gould, Stephen Jay, "The Ediacaran Experiment," Natural History, vol. 93 (February 1984), p. 22.] -"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."
[George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]-"...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.Â  Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems.Â  It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4735 views

Tony: Some of the basic points that I picked up(For the benefit of DHW):
> 
>

Out of 200+ methods of dating, 90% do not agree with extreme old ages.(I am still trying to confirm or deny that)
>
Fossils are used to date rock strata, which are in turn used to date fossils. Circular logic.(Confirmed)-Thanks for the summary. I disagree about your aging point. There are about 5-6 different isotopes that can be used for dating. Carbon doesn't go back very far but some of the others do. Yes, using fossils is circular, but most dating now is isotopic. I've toured the Grand Canyon by raft with a University professor, chief of the geology department, at the time an author of many articles on the geology of the canyon. I've had my hand on the Vishnu shist, over 2 billion years old, the great unconformity, missing 750,000 years, worm borings at 200 million years ago and we had full discussions of dating. I'm satisfied abouot that science.-The other points you presented are right on the mark for driving the impression there has to be a Great Designer intellect. Most of them I have in my book.

4699 views

My problem is not with isotopic dating as a method as much as it is the assumptions that have to be made and the number of false measurements that have been made. -As one example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003358949290071P-The funny thing here is that it is talking about the difficulties of having aquatic and sediments when trying to verify carbon dates. Ironically, given the sheer number and distribution of marine organisms in the fossil record on land, it implies that much of the earth was covered with water at some point or another, regardless of whether or not you believe in a global flood. The mere presence of these marine organisms invalidates a large number of radiometric dating techniques because they can not be corrected for an environment that can not be sampled. -This also calls into question the validity of sediment layers as ocean currents and river output would dramatically change the sedimentary composition of these now-defunct seas.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4749 views

I did see one other thing about radiometric dating that perhaps you could clarify. -One paper I read says that the look for the point on the graph where the parent and daughter isotopes meet and say that is where the initial formation of the rock was. But that same paper says that nature doesn't differentiate between one isotope and another of the same element in most processes(I do not necessarily agree with that, but that is for another discussion). So anyway, when I see that statement, two questions come to my mind. -A) How do we know which isotopes formed the initial material, if nature does not distinguish between them?-B) Isn't this assuming that all isotopes in a given sample were formed at the same time? If they were not, then the isotopes would be spawning daughter isotopes at different times, even if they had the same constant decay rate. -
For example:-You have a rock formed of isotope A, that breaks down to isotope B. Now, in any given sample there may be thousands or millions of each. Call these individuals A1..A2..An.., likewise for isotope B.-Let's use C14, to help ease the calculation somewhat. -If all samples of A were created at the same time, then every single sample would decay once in 5,730 years, leaving you with a 1/2 set{A}1=set{A}2 and 1/2{A}={B}1, assuming no daughter elements present. At this point, you have a rock that is anywhere between 5730-8600+ years old. Your error ellipses get bigger, not smaller, until you reach an age where no C14 is available, at which point the test is no longer usable.. -
But what happens if the time of creation for any value of A can be any value between 1-5730? You might have 10% that is 5700 years old(yo) and some that was 3000yo when the rock sample was formed, regardless of when the actual sample was formed.-How do they account for these unknowns? A dating sample from C14 can be between 1-X years old, regardless of the distribution. Simply by virtue of not knowing when the initial atom was formed. Even IF we saw that there had been several stages of decay, that does not give us an accurate date because we do not know necessarily know which isotope was there to begin with.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4689 views

Sorry for some many replies in such short succession, but I had one more question regarding the radiometric dating.-
From the current theory of how the Earth formed, pretty much all matter in the early earth would not only have been extremely hot, but depending on your view, we should also have seen one of two other affects that we do not see. -The first is based on gravity being the major function, which suggests that ALL of the heavier elements would have gravitated to the core of the planet, leaving your magma flows to consist primarily of lighter elements and perhaps a light dusting of the heavier ones in the form of sediments. -The second would be that the earths initial higher rotational velocity should have forced the heavier elements to the outside, leaving the inner core composed primarily of lighter elements. -To muddy the waters further, if the early earth was molten, then none of our radiometric dating is valid anyways, because there is no way to prove any sort of homogeneity of isotopes in the original formation of the rocks, nor any way to know how the heat variations would have affected those atomic clocks. -The final icing that I can think of, for the moment at least, is two part. First, do we/can we account for the spread of isotopes distributed through accretion and cataclysmic events? (Earthquakes, floods, volcanos, meteorstrikes, etc)

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4719 views

Tony: Sorry for some many replies in such short succession, but I had one more question regarding the radiometric dating.
> The first is based on gravity being the major function, which suggests that ALL of the heavier elements would have gravitated to the core of the planet, leaving your magma flows to consist primarily of lighter elements and perhaps a light dusting of the heavier ones in the form of sediments.-The earth formed by the accretion of planetismals. Explosion of supernovae placed heavier elements on the Earth's surface as a sequential process. That is how it took 500 million years to go from early sun to Earth formation. I don't know all the details of the theory of planet formation, but the books on how special the Earth is are quite clear. For life, we must have a molten iron/nickel core for a magnetic field to protect us, floating continents for the rock/CO2 cycle, and so on and so on. 
>> 
> Tony:To muddy the waters further, if the early earth was molten, then none of our radiometric dating is valid anyways, because there is no way to prove any sort of homogeneity of isotopes in the original formation of the rocks, nor any way to know how the heat variations would have affected those atomic clocks. -We are measuring prior time in continental layers floating on that molten core we have. I don't think your theory fits.
> 
> Tony:The final icing that I can think of, for the moment at least, is two part. First, do we/can we account for the spread of isotopes distributed through accretion and cataclysmic events? (Earthquakes, floods, volcanos, meteorstrikes, etc)-Your theory won't break up geologic layers enough to get the result you are suggesting. Look at Grand Canyon pictures

4686 views

Tony; I did see one other thing about radiometric dating that perhaps you could clarify. -
I can't help. I understand how they use ratios, but after that I don't have enough knowledge. I admit I've simply accepted that radiometrics work and the different elements used agree with each other within 10-15%.-This Wiki article is very helpful. Each method has time limits but uranium/lead goes back well over 2 billion years:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

4705 views

Tony: My problem is not with isotopic dating as a method as much as it is the assumptions that have to be made and the number of false measurements that have been made. 
> 
> As one example: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003358949290071P
> 
> The funny thing here is that it is talking about the difficulties of having aquatic and sediments when trying to verify carbon dates. Ironically, given the sheer number and distribution of marine organisms in the fossil record on land, it implies that much of the earth was covered with water at some point or another, regardless of whether or not you believe in a global flood.-No I don't believe in a global flood. But continental drift and the separation of the original pangaea, the raising and lowering of continental height levels have created many examples as you know of previous inland seas. That can create the impression of a global flood. I can certainly buy the idea of a Black Sea flood with the end of the last ice age, with the formation of ice dams and innundation of the Black Sea. Lots of recent evidence for that scenario. If you believe the Noah story the seas rose to 20 (?) cubits above the highest mountain which we know as Everest, about 6 miles high. Not likely.-Again you are presenting Carbon 13/12 as their only measurement. More recent work I'ved seen, but can't currently reference,in studying sediments does not have their problem.

4722 views

David: No I don't believe in a global flood. But continental drift and the separation of the original pangaea, the raising and lowering of continental height levels have created many examples as you know of previous inland seas. That can create the impression of a global flood. I can certainly buy the idea of a Black Sea flood with the end of the last ice age, with the formation of ice dams and innundation of the Black Sea. Lots of recent evidence for that scenario. If you believe the Noah story the seas rose to 20 (?) cubits above the highest mountain which we know as Everest, about 6 miles high. Not likely.
> 
> Again you are presenting Carbon 13/12 as their only measurement. More recent work I'ved seen, but can't currently reference,in studying sediments does not have their problem.-I actually was not/am not trying to prove a global flood, I was merely referencing the fact that apparently much of what is dry land was once under water.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4686 views


> Tony: I actually was not/am not trying to prove a global flood, I was merely referencing the fact that apparently much of what is dry land was once under water.-Fair enough. I was only trying to present valid reasons why it looks that way. Leonardo diVinci knedw there were fossils in the Alps. Look at the Dolomite mountains in the Italian Alps.

4693 views

My thanks to Tony for provided us with the basic points of this thread. -I'm in no position to discuss the techniques of dating, or the physics, but I have no difficulty supporting many of the arguments listed against Darwinian evolution ... and in fact, they have formed the subject of many of our discussions. They include (in my own words): lack of fossils, random mutations and adaptations unlikely to account for innovation, problems with gradualism, no evidence for abiogenesis (though this is not an evolutionary topic as such).-One item on the list stands out for me: "The model that incorporates the most data and has the smallest number of unresolved issues is the most likely to be true." My only reservation here concerns "the smallest number of unresolved issues", because in the conflict between evolutionist and creationist models, the issues are not confined to the manner in which living creatures evolved. First, though, it's important to point out that few people can cover all the fields concerned with this topic, and certainly all of us on this forum are dependent for our information on the work of so-called experts. If there is a general consensus, we tend to accept their findings. (I myself can't prove that the Earth goes round the sun. I simply accept it as a fact.) This makes us vulnerable, and if there is controversy, I think one has to keep an open mind. The same scepticism applies of course to other sources of information, such as ancient texts that purport to contain eternal, though unprovable truths. Why should we trust them?-The very simplified picture that I have of life's history is as follows: origin unknown; first forms of life single-celled followed by multicellularity followed by variations through new combinations; increased complexity, new organs, new species, many extinctions, many survivals, arrival of man.-The model of evolution that seems to me to incorporate the most data with the smallest number of unresolved issues is as follows:
Origin unknown; first forms of life must have contained the mechanism for increasing complexity through combinations/variations; changing environments led to new combinations, sometimes adapting, sometimes innovating; each new variation led to new organs, new species; changing environments resulted in extinctions as well as innovations; natural selection determined what survived; arrival of man.-In my view, there is no conflict here between evolution and creation (in the sense of design). The above process removes the fossil problem and dispenses with gradualism (new variations would be sudden and would have to function if they were to survive), does away with random mutations, generates innovations.-Only one unresolved issue: origin of the first forms of life with mechanism for increasing complexity through new variations.
Two possible resolutions: 1) design by an unknown designer; 2) chance assembly.
(For the sake of simplicity, I will leave out the various panpsychic ideas I have been playing with.)-The complexity of the mechanism may also be applied to the complexity of the combination of factors within the universe that are necessary for life. Origin: as above.-This brings us to the "smallest number of unresolved issues". However unlikely it may seem to some of us, numerically chance wins hands down. One huge stroke of luck, and there are no further ramifications. But the moment you bring in a designer, you are clobbered with a vast number of unresolved issues: 1) Where did the designer come from? 2) What reason(s) did it have for creating life? 3) What is its nature? 4) What does it want from us? 5) What are its future plans for us? And arising from all these unresolved issues are millennia of disagreements, libraries of books and interpretations of books, vast institutions, conflicts on a massive scale...-Chance ends the debate. The universe is then a vast impersonal combination of mindless matter and energy, there is no purpose, and we are on our own.-You do not need to repeat the case against chance. In my view it is unanswerable. I (and of course many others) have put the case against any kind of self-aware god. In my view it is unanswerable. One can only take sides through an act of faith ... and Tony, you have summed this up admirably under "How God works": "I find no reason to doubt the things that we can not yet prove. That is the textbook definition of faith." You and Richard Dawkins both have it in abundance.-******-I was afraid that my interrogation of you on the subject of resurrection, the 1000 year reign of Christ, the eternal death of agnostics etc. might break the bounds even of your patience, and I'm sorry to have caused you so much frustration. It would be best to leave it at that, except to thank you and Casey, and to reciprocate all the good wishes.

4677 views

dhw: (I myself can't prove that the Earth goes round the sun. I simply accept it as a fact.) This makes us vulnerable, and if there is controversy, I think one has to keep an open mind. -Sure you can. Why do we have seasons? We know the Earth is tilted because the sun arises ad sets differently in diferent seasons.-
> 
> dhw: But the moment you bring in a designer, you are clobbered with a vast number of unresolved issues: 1) Where did the designer come from? 2) What reason(s) did it have for creating life? 3) What is its nature? 4) What does it want from us? 5) What are its future plans for us? -Your trouble is that you are trying to anthropomorphize the First Cause. It can't be done with any sense of logic, because of our ignorance about it. Accept it as is. There is a first cause and we are here. Nuff said.
> 
> dhw:Chance ends the debate. The universe is then a vast impersonal combination of mindless matter and energy, there is no purpose, and we are on our own.
> You do not need to repeat the case against chance. In my view it is unanswerable. -Agreed. Just as with first cause. Unanswerable.- 
> dhw:It would be best to leave it at that, except to thank you and Casey, and to reciprocate all the good wishes.-I'm delighted to have Tony and Casey here with active viewpoints.

4710 views

dhw: (I myself can't prove that the Earth goes round the sun. I simply accept it as a fact.) This makes us vulnerable, and if there is controversy, I think one has to keep an open mind.
 
DAVID: Sure you can. Why do we have seasons? We know the Earth is tilted because the sun arises and sets differently in different seasons.-Wouldn't we still have seasons if the sun went round a tilted, spinning, but not orbiting Earth? (Whatever your answer, I think I've proved my point!)-dhw: But the moment you bring in a designer, you are clobbered with a vast number of unresolved issues: 1) Where did the designer come from? 2) What reason(s) did it have for creating life? 3) What is its nature? 4) What does it want from us? 5) What are its future plans for us?
 
DAVID: Your trouble is that you are trying to anthropomorphize the First Cause. It can't be done with any sense of logic, because of our ignorance about it. Accept it as is. There is a first cause and we are here. Nuff said.-"Your trouble is" that you've missed the point, which is that chance is by far the simpler explanation. The passage you've quoted continued: "And arising from all these unresolved issues are millennia of disagreements, libraries of books and interpretations of books, vast institutions, conflicts on a massive scale" ... all of which demonstrate the ramifications of the design theory. I'm describing what has happened, not what you think should happen. My post continued:-dhw: Chance ends the debate. The universe is then a vast impersonal combination of mindless matter and energy, there is no purpose, and we are on our own.
Nuff said?-Re anthropomorphizing the First Cause: the moment you attribute purpose to his actions (as you have done with your insistence that man was the planned end product), you are anthropomorphizing him. And once you go down that line, I don't think it is humanly possible to stop yourself from wondering what that purpose might be.

4740 views


> dhw: Chance ends the debate. The universe is then a vast impersonal combination of mindless matter and energy, there is no purpose, and we are on our own.
> Nuff said?-Chance does not end the debate because of its open ended problems: Where did anything come from? How did life start? The complicated first cells are astronomically impossible to imagine as due to chance. The much simpler answer is there is a Designer.-
> 
> dhw: Re anthropomorphizing the First Cause: the moment you attribute purpose to his actions (as you have done with your insistence that man was the planned end product), you are anthropomorphizing him. And once you go down that line, I don't think it is humanly possible to stop yourself from wondering what that purpose might be.-By looking at the process He presents to us and its outcome, I can reach conclusions that evolution had a purpose. An end point of a human with consciousness is highly improbable and implies purpose. I am am totally content with that, without knowing what God is thinking. God is unknowable; we are trapped with that knowledge and we can go no further.

4719 views

dhw: Chance ends the debate. The universe is then a vast impersonal combination of mindless matter and energy, there is no purpose, and we are on our own.
Nuff said?-DAVD: Chance does not end the debate because of its open ended problems: Where did anything come from? How did life start? The complicated first cells are astronomically impossible to imagine as due to chance. The much simpler answer is there is a Designer.-Round we go! "Where did anything come from?" The same answer for both theist and atheist: first cause energy (self-aware for the theist, mindless for the atheist). How life started is the subject of the choice here! For reasons why chance is the simpler of two equally unbelievable theories, see the second half of my post of 18 January at 18.30.
 
dhw: Re anthropomorphizing the First Cause: the moment you attribute purpose to his actions (as you have done with your insistence that man was the planned end product), you are anthropomorphizing him. And once you go down that line, I don't think it is humanly possible to stop yourself from wondering what that purpose might be.-DAVID: By looking at the process He presents to us and its outcome, I can reach conclusions that evolution had a purpose. An end point of a human with consciousness is highly improbable and implies purpose. I am totally content with that, without knowing what God is thinking. God is unknowable; we are trapped with that knowledge and we can go no further.-Paradoxically, you go one stage further than me, although I go one stage further than you! I look at the process, at life, at the earth, at the universe: stars come and go; evolution happened, billions of species came and went; nothing is permanent. Each light flickers an instant, then it dies, as it has done before we came, and as it will do when we are gone. I conclude that whether God exists or not is unknowable, and I am trapped with that knowledge. You think you can go further. So does Tony. So do George and Dawkins. And so the paradox is that in our approach to the unknowable, you go one stage further than me with your conclusion, but I go one stage further than you with my speculation, because I do not stop at the unknowable. As Tony so rightly says, I am stubborn!

4617 views

dhw: I conclude that whether God exists or not is unknowable, and I am trapped with that knowledge. You think you can go further. So does Tony. So do George and Dawkins. And so the paradox is that in our approach to the unknowable, you go one stage further than me with your conclusion, but I go one stage further than you with my speculation, because I do not stop at the unknowable. As Tony so rightly says, I am stubborn!-You are right. Tony and I and millions others conclude that the unknowable can be conceived and accepted. You cannot. But you are not one stage further than we are. Whether chance was the mechanism is also unknowable. It is just one of the two unknowable possibilities. Take your choice or fence sit.

4689 views

dhw: I conclude that whether God exists or not is unknowable, and I am trapped with that knowledge. You think you can go further. So does Tony. So do George and Dawkins. And so the paradox is that in our approach to the unknowable, you go one stage further than me with your conclusion, but I go one stage further than you with my speculation, because I do not stop at the unknowable. As Tony so rightly says, I am stubborn!-DAVID: You are right. Tony and I and millions others conclude that the unknowable can be conceived and accepted. You cannot. But you are not one stage further than we are. Whether chance was the mechanism is also unknowable. It is just one of the two unknowable possibilities. Take your choice or fence sit.-In my post I called God and chance two equally unbelievable theories. However, your response is based on a misunderstanding. I was replying to your comment that God himself (i.e. his nature, as opposed to his existence) is unknowable, and so we should not anthropomorphize him because "we are trapped with that knowledge and we can go no further." That is the subject on which Tony and I are both speculating, and that is the sense in which he and I are going one stage further than you.

4698 views

Here is a pie-in-the-sky scientist supposing a theory of how molecules in water suddenly developed information to control cell activity.-http://podcasts.aaas.org/science_news/transcript/ScienceNOWPodcast_130215.pdf-All of the science is by intelligent design in the lab.

4637 views

More intelligent design in the lab: a human designed enzyme:-http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2013/UR_CONTENT_429344.html-"Enzymes have always fascinated me," he says. 'It's rewarding to do work that has practical applications yet provides the opportunity to better understand how life on earth evolved.'"-Does this prove anything about origin of life? Of course not!-More of course not: making small bits or RNA and then watching what happens. The original earth was all inorganic, so where do the RNA bases come from?-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130220123332.htm

4726 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum